The “last chance” given by the March 8 team to Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri a few hours before the resignation of the opposition ministers and his meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House, meant to the majority of the Lebanese that he was given a choice between two decisions. The first was to pack his bags fast and apologize to the American president for not being able to meet with him because something urgent had come up and required him to come to Beirut to sign the divorce between Lebanon and the international tribunal, which was perceived by the opposition as being American and Israeli. As for the second, it was to ignore the pressures and “warning” of the March 8 team and meet with the president of the biggest sponsoring state of the tribunal's establishment, but as a former prime minister - i.e. without the card of Lebanese legitimacy which he represents. Is Lebanon heading toward the tunnel once again? But had it truly exited this tunnel since it signed the Doha Accord? And if the pledges of the opposition not to use the arms on the domestic arena ever again are truthful, can it guarantee the formation of an alternative government for the national unity government and convince a Sunni figure to head it? More importantly, can it guarantee that this government will get the vote of confidence in parliament? General Michel Aoun proclaimed the death of the Saudi-Syrian effort to sponsor a solution that would contain the possible repercussions of the indictment which will be issued by the tribunal. Following this, no one could believe that the Lebanonization of the solution – as it is wanted by the opposition – would be able to overcome the bottleneck of the crisis that is obstructing the Cabinet's work and the national dialogue table. Indeed, everyone agreed to reject internationalization, and the Arabization of the sponsorship of the solution took many months before getting obstructed by what was referred to by the head of the Democratic Gathering, Walid Jumblatt, as being a “technical flaw”. So now it is hard to believe that the March 8 team can conjure the miracle of the full Lebanonization of a settlement that would please both the justice camp and the “toppling of the tribunal conspiracy” camp. The paradox is that a mere “technical flaw” is almost leading Lebanon toward hell, chaos, and the unknown, which is prevailing in the Arab region. Nevertheless, the other facet of this paradox is that the opposition, which is insisting on distancing the danger of strife – as it claims – did not see anything wrong with toppling the government of Saad al-Hariri, who has been holding on for a long time, so that he would personally sign the divorce settlement with the tribunal. It is thus the beginning of the stage of the “field measures” which will be implemented by March 8, at the head of which is Hezbollah, in order to stop the tribunal's funding, pull out the Lebanese judges from it and oust any team affiliated with the international investigation commission assigned to uncover the implications of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and the other assassinations which drowned Lebanon in a bloody tunnel for long months. In the Western perception or the American expression which classifies the states that do not commit to the resolutions of the Security Council as being “rogue,” can Lebanon defy the international legitimacy represented by the Council and especially Chapter VII of the UN Charter based on which the tribunal was established? This is an old and renewed question which the state will have to face. But what state is that? Was the Qatari warning on the eve of the ministerial resignations not a message addressed to all the sides in Lebanon not to undertake any steps that might change the formula governing the institutions to monopolize the rule? Was the warning of Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal against the dangerous repercussions of the dismantlement of Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri's government not an alarm bell - during the last quarter of an hour - to preempt what is much worse than a mere ministerial crisis? Some may have been surprised by Damascus' rush to inform the opposition about the outcome of the Syrian-Saudi efforts to sponsor the solution, after certain sides were suspicious about the sustainment of the Syrian arrest warrants against Lebanese figures. And while some in the March 14 forces are still unable to understand the expression “domestic Lebanese affairs” which may have encouraged the other side to easily proclaim the death of the S-S settlement and launch the “last chance” deadline for the Cabinet to bury cooperation with the tribunal and the investigation teams, others from the camp of the “justice, truth and stability” are recalling “Khamenei's announcement of the death of the tribunal” a few weeks ago, and are mentioning that the “last chance” is the same card being used by Tehran in its upcoming negotiations with the West in Istanbul. Through a simple mathematical equation, it turns out that the “dark forces” which were accused by Jumblatt of having obstructed the S-S settlement, is America according to the Lebanese opposition which has decided in favor of “decisiveness.” However, can the chapter of the confrontation with the tribunal and its sponsors be limited to a mere new May 7? The winds of mayhem throughout the region are heralding a Tsunami, as the map-changing era is no longer just a possibility for the pessimists and as the winds of strife are loudly expanding.
